Has the Petitioner established good cause for this Court to issue a writ of certiorari before judgment because the nonuniform local rules directly contradict this Court's holdings in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, Students For Fair Admission v. Harvard, and NIFLA v. Becerra, when the record shows the Third Circuit is beset with extraordinary conflicts of interest and has wholly refused to consider Petitioner's claims?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022) held because of the uniformity requirement similarly situated citizens in different states cannot be subjected to nonuniform access standards to the federal court. This Court in Students For Fair Admission v. Harvard, _ U.S. ___ 2022, 20-1199, held “the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.” Slip p. 40. This Court in NIFLA v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018), held there is no such thing as professional speech, explicitly disapproving of appellate court decisions citing professional speech, and refusing to apply strict scrutiny—including the Third Circuit. Id. at 2371-72. Petitioner challenges the sacred cow. Petitioner challenges nonuniform United States District Court local rules that categorically block general admission privileges for experienced lawyers licensed in fortynine states based on state law and categorically bequest general admission to all novice forum state lawyers based on state law The question presented is: 1. Has the Petitioner established good cause for this Court to issue a writ of certiorari before judgment because the nonuniform local rules directly contradict li QUESTION PRESENTED—Continued this Court’s holdings in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, and Students For Fair Admission v. Harvard, and NIFLA v. Becerra, when the record shows the Third Circuit is beset with extraordinary conflicts of interest and has wholly refused to consider Petitioner’s claims?